SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain more fully how you drew the conclusion Fahed Nasser Mohamed violated someone's copyright?

I will probably be requesting a deletion review on this article.

I've speculated as to how you might have reached this conclusion.

1. Is it possible that you noticed a mirror of the wikipedia, and thought it was the original source? The wikipedia is very widely mirrored.

• Is it possible you found passages that the article had quoted from the original DoD documents? You do realize that everything done by an employee of the US Federal Government, that is not classified, is in the public domain? Referenced verbatim quotes from DoD documents are not copyright violations.

I asked here in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahed Nasser Mohamed. I am repeating this question, because I am strongly committed to complying with policy. If one of my correspondents has really found a lapse from poolicy I have overlooked I want to get to the bottom of it, and fix other instances of that lapse.

So, I would really appreciate you explaining yourself.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment in the RFD was that "the article seems to have copied content and images straight out of another article" - I did not say anything about copyright. There were several articles about people held at Guantanamo Bay Detention Centre that used the same text and pictures in commenting about conditions at the centre. If the article is about a person, then concentrate on that person, commentary about Guantanamo copied from another Guantanamo prisoner article is simply a waste of space, and is irrelevant to an article about the person. Copying text about "conditions at prison x" from one article about "a prisoner at x" to another about "a prisoner at x" is a duplication of material that should be avoided, the information about the prison should be in the article about the prison, not repeated in every article about a named prisoner. It was apparent when looking at the articles concerned that if the common and repeated material about "the prison" was removed from each "prisoner" article in which it occured, then in many cases the only information about "the prisoner" was "person y is a prisoner held at prison x" - and I believe that this is not sufficient to make person y a notable person within the meaning of wikipedia. Additionally, it made the pages about the prisoners concerned look as if they were being used as attack pages to attack policies relating to the prison concerned, and / or the operation of that prison. That is also not what WP is about - if you want to discuss issues and controversies about the prison then do it in an appropriate page, such as one about the prison, in a section entitled "controversy", but remember, WP articles must present a neutral viewpoint about the subject they discuss. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have been on a wikibreak. Your note on my talk page initially confused me. FWIW. WRT your sentiment about duplication -- I prefer to have discussions in just one place. If I want to tell someone I have replied to a comment they left, after a long delay, I just leave a link to my comments on their talk page, rather than a duplicate. Your comment on my page is a duplicate, isn't it?

Yes I had been on a wikibreak, which is why I copied the text to your talk page, as I realised that my talk page might have dropped off of your watch list! DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 18:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me explain your comment above? Please consider the chemical elements. If you include the trans-Uranic elements, we know about over one hundred chemical elements. There is going to be repeated elements in individual articles about individual chemical elements. I don't think those repeated passages are "a waste of space".

What don't you understand? Duplicated passages that are not about the article's subject are irrelevant to the articles concerned, and better replaced by a link to the relevant articles. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 18:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

"...the information about the prison should be in the article about the prison, not repeated in every article about a named prisoner. It was apparent when looking at the articles concerned that if the common and repeated material about "the prison" was removed from each "prisoner" article in which it occured, then in many cases the only information about "the prisoner" was "person y is a prisoner held at prison x" - and I believe that this is not sufficient to make person y a notable person within the meaning of wikipedia."

Just to be clear -- am I correct that you were not actually asserting that there was not sufficient unique information about Fahed Nasser Mohammed to fulfill the wikipedia's standards for inclusion?

I was asserting that there was insufficient evidence of notability in the article concerned. Simply being a guantanamo prisoner is not itself notability. I was also asserting that the bulk of the article content was simply material copied from other articles, i.e there was very little unique material in the article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 18:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not responded to the comparison I made to repeated passages in the individual articles about individual chemical elements. I would appreciate you addressing my point. Geo Swan (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw you made some edits to Abdul Razzak (Guantanamo detainee 942). Please look to Talk:Abdul Razzak (Guantanamo detainee 942)

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have made similar edits to dozens of articles, with no real attempt to explain yourself. Please stop. [1] Geo Swan (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No! I am replacing irrelevant boilerplated text with more appropriate links to relevant articles. We call this "cleanup" in Wikipedia. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 18:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you to stop, and discuss what you are doing. Are you refusing to discuss what you are doing?

Please remember WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a battleground. Geo Swan (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above - I am cleaning up the relevant articles. If removing the excess text leaves the articles in a non viable state, then that speaks to the notability of the individual article subjects. I don't see any valid justification being offered by you for including duplicated material about prison procedures in multiple articles about individual prisoners when separate articles already exist about those specific procedures. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 18:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a fundamental design issue. You will see lots of places where an article will have some subsections that have a section heading, a paragraph or two of general context, and then will have a {{main|more specific article}} Articles about countries, often have sections on topics like the geography, history, politics, economy of that country, that have a paragraph or two of context, followed by {{main|History of X}} or {{see|Geograpy of X}}. It would be a disservice to readers to excise those initial paragraphs from the section of those articles that guide readers to the more specific articles. You aren't planning to removed those one or two paragraphs of context prior to every use of {{main}} or {{see}}, are you? Doing so would, IMO, severely damage the readability and usability of the wikipedia. Please don't do that. Geo Swan (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It is designed to be viewed in a web browser. Standards that you might apply to paper articles are irrelevant. If a reader wishes to find out about CSRT or ARB, they can click on the link. If they know what CSRT and ARB are, they do not need the information presented on every page about a guantanamo prisoner. The procedural information about CSRT and ARB is not specific to single prisoners, it is not unique to single prisoners, and it is not about the article subject in prisoner articles. In the articles about the prisoners, you should have information relating to the prisoners, not a commentary on the judicial background to the admninistrative prison procedures. This is especially so when such information appears in many cases to be used as padding in articles that have little content. Discussion of the judicial background to CSRT and ARB should be limited to the articles that exist concerning those procedures. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you to pause in your efforts for a discussion.

I am repeating my request for you to pause in your efforts, so we can discuss this.

Please give me enough time to actually read your various replies, and give me the time to respond. Geo Swan (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the wikipedia is not an a paper encyclopedia -- and that many lessons from paper encyclopedias are irrelevant, or worse. I totally disagree that this implies we should forget about making our articles readable. Making articles readable and easy to understand requires context.

Removing unnecessary duplicated material improves readability. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If, for the sake of argument, the relatively short paragraphs that trigger your concern are too long, then why shouldn't there be a discussion of shorter replacements -- rather than unilateral excisions?

They're not too long, they're irrelevant and misplaced. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you addressed the points I tried to make in my analogy to the articles on the chemical elements, and the point I tried to make about the paragraphs of context that precede instances of {{main}} or {{see}}. Geo Swan (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect to find a discussion on the background to the process for deciding whether a chemical element needs to be kept in a lead box or not in an article for every chemical element and compound. Likewise, I don't expect to find a discussion on the background to the process for deciding whether a prisoner should be in jail or not on every page about a named prisoner. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions you expressed here are opinions on which reasonable people can disagree. I find your unwillingness to pause your efforts for a discussion uncooperative.

What you call irrelevant -- this is a personal opinion -- a POV -- not a "fact". You wrote that those who already understand the CSRT and ARB procedures don't need these paragraphs to be repeated. In particular you wrote:

"...whether a PRISONER should be IN JAIL or not on every page about a named prisoner."

It is the official position of the Bush Presidency that "...the detainees are not prisoners. Guantanamo is not a Prison. Detainees are neither being punished or rehabilitated."

There was a long segment about Guantanamo on my nightly news last night. Several spokesmen repeated what I paraphrased above. No offense, but, this suggests that, even though you think you understand the CSRT and ARB procedures -- you actually may not really understand those procedures, after all. I regard this as a strong argument for the inclusion of these paragraphs. Geo Swan (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

"I wouldn't expect to find a discussion on the background to the process for deciding whether a chemical element needs to be kept in a lead box or not in an article for every chemical element and compound. Likewise..."

You aren't disputing that the articles on the chemical elements are going to contain passages that are similar to passages in articles about other chemical elements? Are you disputing that the articles might usefully contain passages that are duplicate material in the other articles? Geo Swan (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have again ignored the point I am making. I am not saying I would not expect to find similar text, I am saying that I would not expect multiple articles about elements and compounds to contain identical discussion about the need to determine the appropriate storage conditions for the compound or element. I would instead simply expect them to state the correct storage conditions.

CSRT and ARB are processes that are used to determine whether the prisoner should be in the jail. Including the legal background to the introduction of CSRT and ARB into every page about a Guantanamo prisoner would be analogous to including, on every page about a chemical element or compound, a discussion about why there is a need to determine the correct storage conditions, rather than simply stating those conditions.

The CSRT and ARB boilerplate text is not an appropriate item to include in every article about a named prisoner. The text contains nothing that specifically links it to the prisoner that the article is about, and there are already separate articles for the CSRT and ARB. If you want to comment on the legal history behind CSRT and ARB, put your comments in the those articles. Relevant information for CSRT and ARB for per prisoner inclusion is the dates of those proceedings in respect of the named prisoner, whether the prisoner attended, any public records relevant to those proceedings, and any outcome of those proceedings if known. Commentary on the legal position of prisoners as adopted by the executive or the judiciary is an issue affecting all prisoners and should not be boilerplated across multiple prisoner specific articles.

OK, thanks for listening. Unless you have something new to add to the discussion, please don't bother. Please ensure that any response you do make to my comments at the very least indicates that you have read and understood my comments. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you left a reply at one talk page. Please don't continue your deletions large excisions until we have discussed this. Geo Swan (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not confuse clean-ups with deletions. I have not removed any material from any article that relates specifically, solely and uniquely to the subject of that article. I have replaced duplicated boilerplate text with links to the articles in which that material is best homed and from which it appears to have been developed. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 18:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on WP:AN/I asking about whether it was reasonable to expect you to pause. I didn't mention you by name, or the names of any of the articles in question.

FWIW, from my limited experience with WP:AN/I participants don't like it when people try to move the discussion of the issue they differ on to WP:AN/I. I only wanted opinions on the general principle of when contributors can expect another contributor to stop, and pause for discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to take an issue to AN/I, you need to give them enough information to make a judgement. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note. Geo Swan (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move the link from the section headings down to the first instance in the section. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to engage in dialogue on your concerns. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbdul_Razzak_%28Guantanamo_detainee_942%29&diff=195470380&oldid=195463092

Geo Swan (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have. You keep ignoring the points I'm making though, so it's pointless trying to talk to you. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, last year you requested an AfD for an article that you said lacked notability, NPOV, and was being used for soapbox. An adminstrator has placed it as an AfD again, for similiar reasoning of lacking notability. Would you like to comment on this? [2]Fiveboxes (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to take issue with the speedy deletion of Wolfram Demonstrations Project. I have restored it. I think you should take it to AfD if you think it should be deleted. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DMcMPO11AAUK - how have you been? Whenever you get the time, please have a look at the University of Health Sciences Antigua article. The reference 10 is a broken link and the reference 11 is invalid! Thanks! DrGladwin (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for you! a_man_alone (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BrokenRFCxxx has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ExampleRFCxxx has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]